DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Correlates of Algonquian Languages in Quebec-Labrador

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Correlates of Algonquian Languages in Quebec-Labrador Archaeological Correlates of Algonquian Languages in Quebec-Labrador J. PETER DENNY University of Western Ontario In this paper1 I look at the development of the Cree-Montagnais language in the Quebec-Labrador peninsula by combining linguistic and archaeological data. I also examine the likelihood that an Eastern Algonquian language related to Beothuk was spoken on the Labrador coast. In both cases these languages spread from Algonquian homelands far to the west. In considering Cree-Montagnais, the salient fact is that it consists of a chain of dialects making up one language stretching from Labrador to Alberta. Linguists are sure this means that it has spread recently across the boreal forest, perhaps between AD 500 and 1500; if it had been spoken for a long time across the north it would have differentiated into separate languages. Therefore, the archaeology of relatively recent times will be relevant. The archaeology of slightly earlier times will be relevant to con­ sidering whether a Beothuk-related language was spoken in Labrador. This earlier tradition will be considered first. What are the mechanisms by which Algonquian speech spread to the Quebec-Labrador peninsula? In most cases, existing populations of non- Algonquian speakers seem to have intensified their social relations with Algonquian-speaking neighbours to the west and eventually joined with them in an enlarged Algonquian-speaking society. However, in some cases, there seem to have been migrations of Algonquian speakers into lightly- occupied parts of the peninsula where they eventually absorbed local pop­ ulations into their own social system. We will see that the archaeological evidence for these events is regrettably slight, but it is nonetheless crucial to hypothesize specific mechanisms of language change, which can be subject *A preliminary outline of this paper was given at the 23rd Algonquian Con­ ference, London, Ontario, in 1991. I wish to thank the many scholars who sent unpublished reports and made suggestions for this work: David Denton, Joce- lyn Seguin, Marguerite MacKenzie, Jose Mailhot, Roy Wright, Charles Martijn, Michael Spence, Stephen Loring, Douglas Robbins, Cath Oberholtzer, Daniel Chevrier, and Peter Bakker. All the figures are reproduced with the permission of the original publishers, whom I thank for their helpfulness. 83 84 DENNY to further study. One consequence of these strategies of language replace­ ment is the survival in Algonquian of a few words from the languages that were replaced (Pentland 1993). Eastern Algonquian on the Labrador Coast The starting point for suspecting that an Eastern Algonquian language was once spoken on the Labrador coast is the archaeological evidence that Labrador was the original home of the Beothuks: they gradually migrated to Newfoundland beginning about AD 800 (Robbins 1989). This migra­ tion was also reported in Beothuk oral history (Howley 1915:256). The archaeological tradition in Labrador which seems to have been the origin of the Beothuks is the Daniel Rattle/Point Revenge tradition (AD 200-1600) (Loring 1988). In order to argue that this tradition involved Eastern Algon­ quian speech we have to look for connections back to the original homelands of Eastern Algonquian languages. We are somewhat encouraged in this search by the possibility that Beothuk was an Eastern Algonquian lan­ guage. Unfortunately, the written record of Beothuk speech obtained from the last speakers in the early 1800s is of such poor quality that Beothuk can never be proven to be an Algonquian language by the standard techniques of historical linguistics. All we are left with are morphological resemblances that make it probable that it was Algonquian (Hewson 1978). Since one of the theses of this paper will be that Central Algonquian speech, in par­ ticular Cree-Montagnais, arrived in Labrador very much later, if Beothuk is Algonquian it can only be Eastern Algonquian, rather than Central as suggested by Hewson. There is some reassurance in learning that the ar­ chaeological resemblances for the Point Revenge complex from which the Beothuk descended are strongest with the Maritimes and northern New England (Fitzhugh 1978:171), areas of Eastern Algonquian speech. To trace the Labrador archaeological tradition, Daniel Rattle/Point Revenge, back to earlier centers of Eastern Algonquian language we have to have identified those centers on other evidence. One technique used by linguists is the principle of least moves (Dyen 1956) which identifies, as the earlier homeland, the region having the greatest number of surviving languages. For Eastern Algonquian this would be southern New England. However, neither linguistics nor archaeology encourages the idea that Mic­ mac or Beothuk are linked directly to that region. Consequently we have to look for earlier centers of Eastern Algonquian culture from which both the languages of the Maritimes and those of New England might have arisen. An excellent candidate is the Middlesex tradition (700 BC to 50 BC) cen­ tered at Lake Champlain. This had offshoots in southern New England ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES IN QUEBEC-LABRADOR 85 (Loring 1985b), in the Micmac area (Allen 1982), and as we will see in detail, in Quebec-Labrador. Equally importantly, the Middlesex tradition is well-connected archae- ologically to what I have hypothesized to be the earlier Midwestern center of Proto-Algonquian (Denny 1991b). By the linguistic principle of least moves this would be the Lake Michigan-Ohio River area;2 the archaeological tra­ dition there which is the forerunner of Middlesex is Red Ocher/Glacial Kame (1400-400 BC). I have traced this latter tradition further back to the Western Idaho Archaic Burial complex (2500-1800 BC) in the Columbia Plateau region (Denny 1991a). On linguistic grounds, Sapir (1916) had already hypothesized that Algonquian speech originated in the West, and the Delaware oral traditions state that they came from there (Heckewelder 1819).3 From this line of research, the Middlesex tradition centered at Lake Champlain is a plausible starting-point for the spread of Eastern Algon­ quian. Returning now to Labrador, the Daniel Rattle/Point Revenge tradition (AD 200-1600), which is ancestral to the Beothuk, has been connected to the Middlesex tradition by recent archaeological findings reported by Lor­ ing (1989). The cache he uncovered at the Daniel Rattle site on the central Labrador coast (close to the modern settlement of Davis Inlet) contains three ceremonial artifacts that occur at other Middlesex sites in the upper St. Lawrence/Lake Ontario region: a piece of graphite, a beach pebble, and a Robbins blade. The latter (shown front and back in Loring 1989, Fig. 5) is reproduced here as Fig. 1. This cache seems to bridge between the In­ termediate Period complexes and the Daniel Rattle complex, because the other artifacts in it are all typical of the preceding Intermediate Period cultures of the Labrador coast. Loring argues that this cache represents the adoption of Middlesex ceremonialism by existing Labrador peoples. In addition, Loring (1989:56) stresses that since the boreal forest did not have the resources to support a dense population and since a successful adap­ tation required great mobility, ceremonial artifacts such as the contents of 2Another technique used by linguists, finding the overlapping area for the biological species named by reconstructed Proto-Algonquian words, locates the Proto-Algonquian homeland between Lakes Huron and Ontario (Siebert 1967). However, Snow (1976) has re-analysed this data to show that the whole of the Great Lakes, New England and the Maritimes is implicated. I found that the alternative technique, the principle of least moves, led to useful archaeological correlates. 3 This tradition is not remembered by modern Delaware probably because the story-telling families were wiped out in the great epidemics of the early 19th century. 86 DENNY Figure 1: Robbins blade, Daniel Rattle (from Lorring 1989) this cache are evidence of efforts to maintain social connections with dis­ tant groups. However for a Beothuk-related language to be established as a part of Daniel Rattle-Point Revenge culture more intimate social inter­ actions must have taken place.This suggests to me a way in which Eastern Algonquian influence took hold in this region, for which we will see other evidence. Small groups of Middlesex peoples moved there, probably es­ tablishing a maritime economy which was not directly in competition with the more interior-based subsistence of the Intermediate Period inhabitants. Gradually these latter were recruited to the new economy with its distinc­ tive Eastern Algonquian language and ceremonial life. In this way, it can be true that there was, as Loring says "a remarkable social and economic transformation", and also as he says "a long in situ cultural development" (quoted from the English original for the French translation). Why should we prefer the hypothesis that Middlesex folk migrated to Labrador rather than the other possibility that Middlesex influence ar­ rived through down-the-line trade? One reason is the fundamental change from interior to maritime economy, and a second is the very long distance from the Middlesex centers on Lake Champlain. Thirdly, if one accepts the reasoning outlined above that the Beothuks were Eastern Algonquian- speaking descendants of the Point Revenge peoples of Labrador, and that Middlesex culture is the source of Eastern Algonquian, then the language change hypothesized to begin with the Daniel Rattle complex would have required much more intense influence than just trade relationships. ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES IN QUEBEC-LABRADOR Figure 2: a) Turkey-tail; b) Red Ocher blade, GeEl-1 Caniapiscau (from Donton 1989) A fourth reason is the rapid and complete changeover in lithic ma­ terials: Daniel Rattle/Point Revenge peoples replaced the local sources previosly used by extraordinary amounts of Ramah chert which they had to transport from quarries in the Dorset Eskimo territories of northern Labrador. Their prodigal use of Ramah material points to an ease of ac­ cess (Loring 1985a: 135) which must have been based upon building and maintaining excellent peaceful relations with the Dorset people.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-Algonquian- Wakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be in- cluded in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonol- ogy, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics. The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan lan- guages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Extension to the Breeding Range of the Gyrfalcon, Falco Rusticolus, in Eastern North America S
    ARCTIC VOL. 48, NO. 1 (MARCH 1995) P. 94–95 Southern Extension to the Breeding Range of the Gyrfalcon, Falco rusticolus, in Eastern North America S. BRODEUR,1 F. MORNEAU,1 R. DÉCARIE,1 J.-L. DESGRANGES2 and J. NEGRO3 (Received 26 October 1994; accepted in revised form 8 December 1994) ABSTRACT. We report the observation of four gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) nests and several adults south of the previously recognized southern limit of the species’ breeding distribution in eastern North America. Our southernmost observation extends the known breeding range approximately 400 km to the south. The northern forest tundra biome could delineate the southern limit to the breeding range of the gyrfalcon. Key words: gyrfalcon, Falco rusticolus, nesting, distribution, Hudson Bay, Quebec. RÉSUMÉ. Nous rapportons la découverte de quatre nids de faucon gerfaut et la mention de quelques adultes au sud de la limite connue de l’aire de reproduction de l’espèce dans l’est de l’Amérique du Nord. Notre observation la plus méridionale étend l’aire de répartition quelques 400 km plus au sud. Les limites sud de la toundra forestière septentrionale pourraient coincider avec celle de l’aire de reproduction du faucon gerfaut. Mots clés: faucon gerfaut, nicheur, répartition, Baie d’Hudson, Québec. The gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) is a circumboreal breeder the eastern side of Hudson Bay from 1989 to 1992 (Fig. 1). which occurs in the arctic and subarctic regions of North Basins of the Great Whale, Little Whale and Nastapoka America and Eurasia (Brown and Amadon, 1968). In Canada Rivers, as well as some smaller catchments farther south and the species has been reported breeding sparsely north of 59˚ the Hudson Bay coast down to Long Island were covered, of latitude in the arctic tundra (Godfrey, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Problems in Boreal America. I Author(S): Hugh M
    Botanical Problems in Boreal America. I Author(s): Hugh M. Raup Source: Botanical Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, Botanical Problems in Boreal America. I (Mar., 1941), pp. 147-208 Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4353246 Accessed: 15-12-2017 21:12 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Springer, New York Botanical Garden Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Botanical Review This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:12:58 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE BOTANICAL REVIEW VOL. VII MARCH, 1941 No. 3 BOTANICAL PROBLEMS IN BOREAL AMERICA. I HUGH M. RAUP Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ................ ........................... 148 Acknowledgments . ........................................... 150 Exploration .............. ............................. 151 Physiographic History ........................................... 161 Climate ........................................................... 169 Origin and Distribution of the Flora Speciation and Endemism .173 The Theory of Persistence The Darwin-Hooker Concept ............................... 178 The Nunatak Hypothesis .......... .......... 181 Conservatism vs. Aggressiveness ............................. 184 Wynne-Edwards' Criticism of the Nunatak Hypothesis . 186 Discussion of Wynne-Edwards' Criticism .188 Hulten's Studies of Arctic and Boreal Biota Statement of the Problem .198 Plastic vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Death and Life for Inuit and Innu
    skin for skin Narrating Native Histories Series editors: K. Tsianina Lomawaima Alcida Rita Ramos Florencia E. Mallon Joanne Rappaport Editorial Advisory Board: Denise Y. Arnold Noenoe K. Silva Charles R. Hale David Wilkins Roberta Hill Juan de Dios Yapita Narrating Native Histories aims to foster a rethinking of the ethical, methodological, and conceptual frameworks within which we locate our work on Native histories and cultures. We seek to create a space for effective and ongoing conversations between North and South, Natives and non- Natives, academics and activists, throughout the Americas and the Pacific region. This series encourages analyses that contribute to an understanding of Native peoples’ relationships with nation- states, including histo- ries of expropriation and exclusion as well as projects for autonomy and sovereignty. We encourage collaborative work that recognizes Native intellectuals, cultural inter- preters, and alternative knowledge producers, as well as projects that question the relationship between orality and literacy. skin for skin DEATH AND LIFE FOR INUIT AND INNU GERALD M. SIDER Duke University Press Durham and London 2014 © 2014 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ∞ Designed by Heather Hensley Typeset in Arno Pro by Copperline Book Services, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Sider, Gerald M. Skin for skin : death and life for Inuit and Innu / Gerald M. Sider. pages cm—(Narrating Native histories) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978- 0- 8223- 5521- 2 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn 978- 0- 8223- 5536- 6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Naskapi Indians—Newfoundland and Labrador—Labrador— Social conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, Edited by William Cowan
    Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, edited by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University, pp. 119-163 A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and Algonquian Matthew S. Dryer SUNY at Buffalo 1. Introduction In recent years, the term ‘obviation’ has been applied to phenomena in a variety of languages on the basis of perceived similarity to the phenomenon in Algonquian languages to which, I assume, the term was originally applied. An example of a descriptive use of the term occurs in Dayley (1989: 136), who applies the terms ‘obviative’ and ‘proximate’ to two categories of demonstratives in Tümpisa Shoshone, the obviative category being used to introduce new information or to reference given participants which are nontopics, the proximate category for topics. But unlike the obviative and proximate categories of Algonquian languages, the Shoshone categories for which Dayley uses the terms are categories only of a class of words he calls ‘demonstratives’, and are not inflectional categories of nouns or verbs. Similarly, Simpson and Bresnan (1983) use the term ‘obviation’ to refer to a system in Warlpiri in which certain nonfinite verbs occur in forms that indicate that their subjects are nonsubjects in the matrix clause. These phenomena in non-Algonquian languages to which the term ‘obviation’ has been applied may bear some remote resemblance to the Algonquian phenomenon, but I suspect that most Algonquianists examining them would conclude that the resemblance is at best a remote one. The purpose of this paper is to describe an obviation system in Kutenai, a language isolate of southeastern British Columbia and adjacent areas of Idaho and Montana, and to compare it to the obviation system of Algonquian languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Across Borders, for the Future: Torngat Mountains Caribou Herd Inuit
    ACROSS BORDERS, FOR THE FUTURE: Torngat Mountains Caribou Herd Inuit Knowledge, Culture, and Values Study Prepared for the Nunatsiavut Government and Makivik Corporation, Parks Canada, and the Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board - June 2014 This report may be cited as: Wilson KS, MW Basterfeld, C Furgal, T Sheldon, E Allen, the Communities of Nain and Kangiqsualujjuaq, and the Co-operative Management Board for the Torngat Mountains National Park. (2014). Torngat Mountains Caribou Herd Inuit Knowledge, Culture, and Values Study. Final Report to the Nunatsiavut Government, Makivik Corporation, Parks Canada, and the Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board. Nain, NL. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (except brief passages for purposes of review) without the prior permission of the authors. Inuit Knowledge is intellectual property. All Inuit Knowledge is protected by international intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples. As such, participants of the Torngat Mountains Caribou Herd Inuit Knowledge, Culture, and Values Study reserve the right to use and make public parts of their Inuit Knowledge as they deem appropriate. Use of Inuit Knowledge by any party other than hunters and Elders of Nunavik and Nunatsiavut does not infer comprehensive understanding of the knowledge, nor does it infer implicit support for activities or projects in which this knowledge is used in print, visual, electronic, or other media. Cover photo provided by and used with permission from Rodd Laing. All other photos provided by the lead author.
    [Show full text]
  • Jtc1/Sc2/Wg2 N3427 L2/08-132
    JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3427 L2/08-132 2008-04-08 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Proposal to encode 39 Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics in the UCS Source: Michael Everson and Chris Harvey Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2008-04-08 1. Summary. This document requests 39 additional characters to be added to the UCS and contains the proposal summary form. 1. Syllabics hyphen (U+1400). Many Aboriginal Canadian languages use the character U+1428 CANADIAN SYLLABICS FINAL SHORT HORIZONTAL STROKE, which looks like the Latin script hyphen. Algonquian languages like western dialects of Cree, Oji-Cree, western and northern dialects of Ojibway employ this character to represent /tʃ/, /c/, or /j/, as in Plains Cree ᐊᓄᐦᐨ /anohc/ ‘today’. In Athabaskan languages, like Chipewyan, the sound is /d/ or an alveolar onset, as in Sayisi Dene ᐨᕦᐣᐨᕤ /t’ąt’ú/ ‘how’. To avoid ambiguity between this character and a line-breaking hyphen, a SYLLABICS HYPHEN was developed which resembles an equals sign. Depending on the typeface, the width of the syllabics hyphen can range from a short ᐀ to a much longer ᐀. This hyphen is line-breaking punctuation, and should not be confused with the Blackfoot syllable internal-w final proposed for U+167F. See Figures 1 and 2. 2. DHW- additions for Woods Cree (U+1677..U+167D). ᙷᙸᙹᙺᙻᙼᙽ/ðwē/ /ðwi/ /ðwī/ /ðwo/ /ðwō/ /ðwa/ /ðwā/. The basic syllable structure in Cree is (C)(w)V(C)(C).
    [Show full text]
  • Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape
    Endangered Languages, Linguistics, and Culture: Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape By Maureen Hoffmann A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Linguistics Bryn Mawr College May 2009 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures................................................................................................................. 5 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 II. The Lenape People and Their Languages .................................................................. 9 III. Language Endangerment and Language Loss ........................................................ 12 a. What is language endangerment?.......................................................................... 12 b. How does a language become endangered?.......................................................... 14 c. What can save a language from dying?................................................................. 17 d. The impact of language loss on culture ................................................................ 20 e. The impact of language loss on academia............................................................. 21 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Languages, Indigenous Languages of the Native Peoples of North, Middle, and South America
    Native American Languages, indigenous languages of the native peoples of North, Middle, and South America. The precise number of languages originally spoken cannot be known, since many disappeared before they were documented. In North America, around 300 distinct, mutually unintelligible languages were spoken when Europeans arrived. Of those, 187 survive today, but few will continue far into the 21st century, since children are no longer learning the vast majority of these. In Middle America (Mexico and Central America) about 300 languages have been identified, of which about 140 are still spoken. South American languages have been the least studied. Around 1500 languages are known to have been spoken, but only about 350 are still in use. These, too are disappearing rapidly. Classification A major task facing scholars of Native American languages is their classification into language families. (A language family consists of all languages that have evolved from a single ancestral language, as English, German, French, Russian, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, and others have all evolved from Proto-Indo-European.) Because of the vast number of languages spoken in the Americas, and the gaps in our information about many of them, the task of classifying these languages is a challenging one. In 1891, Major John Wesley Powell proposed that the languages of North America constituted 58 independent families, mainly on the basis of superficial vocabulary resemblances. At the same time Daniel Brinton posited 80 families for South America. These two schemes form the basis of subsequent classifications. In 1929 Edward Sapir tentatively proposed grouping these families into superstocks, 6 in North America and 15 in Middle America.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of the World--Native America
    REPOR TRESUMES ED 010 352 46 LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD-NATIVE AMERICA FASCICLE ONE. BY- VOEGELIN, C. F. VOEGELIN, FLORENCE N. INDIANA UNIV., BLOOMINGTON REPORT NUMBER NDEA-VI-63-5 PUB DATE JUN64 CONTRACT MC-SAE-9486 EDRS PRICENF-$0.27 HC-C6.20 155P. ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS, 6(6)/1-149, JUNE 1964 DESCRIPTORS- *AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES, *LANGUAGES, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, ARCHIVES OF LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD THE NATIVE LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS OF THE NEW WORLD"ARE DISCUSSED.PROVIDED ARE COMPREHENSIVE LISTINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LANGUAGES OF AMERICAN INDIANSNORTH OF MEXICO ANDOF THOSE ABORIGINAL TO LATIN AMERICA..(THIS REPOR4 IS PART OF A SEkIES, ED 010 350 TO ED 010 367.)(JK) $. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION nib Office ofEduc.442n MD WELNicitt weenment Lasbeenreproduced a l l e a l O exactly r o n o odianeting es receivromed f the Sabi donot rfrocestarity it. Pondsof viewor position raimentofficial opinions or pritcy. Offkce ofEducation rithrppologicalLinguistics Volume 6 Number 6 ,Tune 1964 LANGUAGES OF TEM'WORLD: NATIVE AMER/CAFASCICLEN. A Publication of this ARC IVES OF LANGUAGESor 111-E w oRLD Anthropology Doparignont Indiana, University ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS is designed primarily, butnot exclusively, for the immediate publication of data-oriented papers for which attestation is available in the form oftape recordings on deposit in the Archives of Languages of the World. This does not imply that contributors will bere- stricted to scholars working in the Archives at Indiana University; in fact,one motivation for the publication
    [Show full text]
  • Algonquian Connections to Salishan and Northeastern Archaeology
    Algonquian Connections to Salishan and Northeastern Archaeology J. PETER DENNY University of Western Ontario Beyond the written records of the last few centuries, our access to Al­ gonquian history is through historical linguistics and archaeology. In this paper1 I discuss two problems in this regard: 1) the likelihood that Al­ gonquian languages and Salishan languages are genetically related, and 2) possible relations between Algonquian speech and the archaeological tradi­ tions of the Northeast. Since I am a semanticist, not a historical linguist or an archaeologist, my perspective centers on word meanings and upon selected lexical systems, notably noun classifiers and incorporated nouns It was semantic problems that first made me wonder about the complex­ ities of Algonquian history. I encountered a number of morphemes whose meanings seemed improbable if it were true that Algonquian speakers had always lived m small hunting bands like those of the Cree-Montagnais and Ojibwa speakers in the boreal forest. Some of the puzzles are these: 1) Proto-Algonquian (PA) *elenyiwa 'person' may come from the root *elen- ordinary ; this suggests the possibility that ordinary people were contrasted with higher status people in a stratified society at some time earlier in Al­ gonquian history. 2) WTDS.? SCTh°/ SPedal V6rb n^ ^°r aCti°nS d0ne * i»taun*»t. (not in oairsnt f • "f- ^^ WdI malked morPh°logically since they come cLTmarker w £T ^T verbs-hich always has a semantic verb th d ( enn y 985 d one SSil! f* t T ? L ? )' ™ for transitive inanimate verbs belonging to sub-class 1, which, under the analysis of Pigeott (1979^ if oT l983) haV Stem endi"S in a verb d« m-ker a^ ii See and Ojibwa this very clear-cut group contains an unexpected member I iK °<*-^ my study integrative articles concerned with geo.ranhlfre^n § VK 'T^ °Ut t0 be Peri ds since it is only at this level of inference^ thataXP.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Southern Algonquians and Their Neighbours DAVID H. PENTLAND University of Manitoba INTRODUCTION At least fifty named Indian groups are known to have lived in the area south of the Mason-Dixon line and north of the Creek and the other Muskogean tribes. The exact number and the specific names vary from one source to another, but all agree that there were many different tribes in Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas during the colonial period. Most also agree that these fifty or more tribes all spoke languages that can be assigned to just three language families: Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Siouan. In the case of a few favoured groups there is little room for debate. It is certain that the Powhatan spoke an Algonquian language, that the Tuscarora and Cherokee are Iroquoians, and that the Catawba speak a Siouan language. In other cases the linguistic material cannot be positively linked to one particular political group. There are several vocabularies of an Algonquian language that are labelled Nanticoke, but Ives Goddard (1978:73) has pointed out that Murray collected his "Nanticoke" vocabulary at the Choptank village on the Eastern Shore, and Heckeweld- er's vocabularies were collected from refugees living in Ontario. Should the language be called Nanticoke, Choptank, or something else? And if it is Nanticoke, did the Choptank speak the same language, a different dialect, a different Algonquian language, or some completely unrelated language? The basic problem, of course, is the lack of reliable linguistic data from most of this region. But there are additional complications. It is known that some Indians were bilingual or multilingual (cf.
    [Show full text]